Management of Anterior Choroidal Artery Aneurysms: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anterior choroidal artery (AChoA) aneurysms pose a challenge for both endovascular and clipping procedures. The eloquent territory supplied by the parent vessel has limited collateralization and its compromise can lead to significant morbidity. This study aims to analyze the clinical outcomes and procedure-related complications of clipping and endovascular treatment of AChoA aneurysms to aid physician decision making. Methods: Thirty-two ruptured and unruptured AChoA aneurysms that underwent catheter angiography at a single neurovascular center between January 2000 and December 2023 were included. Either conservative management, clipping, and/or endovascular treatment were performed. Clinical outcomes and complications were analyzed retrospectively. Results: Twenty-four endovascular treatments and seven clipping procedures were included. Of the total 24 endovascular procedures, 46% were primary coiling, 25% were balloon-assisted coiling, 13% were flow diverting stent, 8% were combined balloon-assisted coiling and flow diverting stent, and 8% were combined balloon-assisted and stent-assisted coiling. There was no procedure-related mortality in both groups. No intra- or post-procedural ruptures/re-ruptures occurred during follow-up in both endovascular and clipping cohorts. AChoA territory infarcts occurred in 4% of the endovascular and 29% of the clipping cohorts. Other thromboembolic complications occurred in 4% of the endovascular cohort. The recurrence rate requiring retreatment was 12.5% for the endovascular and 43% for the clipping cohort. A favorable clinical outcome (mRS ≤ 2) was 78% for the endovascular cohort and 67% for the clipping cohort. Conclusions: Endovascular and clipping outcomes align with prior studies, with endovascular showing a favorable safety profile. Both approaches are viable, though they present distinct risks and advantages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".